Viewpoints: Mixed mail: From meter maids and old-school music to dead fish

Published 6:30 am, Saturday, February 8, 2003

Parking maids handle budget woes

Imagine my surprise when a meter maid ticketed my car parked in front of my own house at 11 a.m. in my west Houston subdivision because it was parked in the wrong direction. Is this how the city plans to make up the shortfall?

If not a budget issue, where has this meter maid been for the past seven years that I have lived here and parked my car this way.

Let me figure this out: A $20 ticket, less the meter maid's hourly wage and benefits, less the expense of the city vehicle used to locate my errant parking job. ... My guess, if I pay this ticket, is that it will net the city of Houston about $2. Way to go, Houston.

Dead fish same as dead canaries

In Secretary of State Colin Powell's detailed and compelling report of the threat from Saddam Hussein this week, he mentioned the fact that our public drinking water supplies are at risk.

In Houston, our Public Works Department has downgraded its water-testing capabilities; and in light of what we know about threats to our safety, this is frightening news. Is microbiology such a simple procedure that we no longer need to test our water?

After Sept. 11, fish tanks were placed in three of our water plants. Our drinking water runs continuously through these plants while the chlorine is being removed. I guess this is supposed to function the same way that canaries in a coal mine do. It's time to fix the problems with our drinking water and the testing of it. Why wait for something tragic to happen before a problem is recognized and handled?

My dream night on the town ...

My idea of a superior night on the town would be to drive to a light rail station in Kingwood, get on a train for downtown Houston where the unique architecture would be masterfully lighted, have a reasonable but delicious meal for the five people in my family and then, as Deborah Moran suggested in her Jan. 26 Viewpoints letter ("Keep it simple, symphony"), attend a Houston Symphony concert of at least two popular and well-known pieces from the masters.

While new work has a niche, this old-school music-lover still cherishes Rachmaninoff, Jules Massenet and Camille Saint-Saëns, and would participate more often with these kinds of choices.

Compelling case for symphony

I recently graduated from Rice University's music program and moved to Spokane to take a position with the symphony orchestra. I lived in Houston for five years while going to school.

I hope Houston realizes what a great blessing it is to have access to one of the finest symphonic institutions in this country. I have attended countless concerts by the Houston Symphony that left my hair standing on end because of the amazing musicians and their commitment to being the best.

I recently got a chance to substitute with the Houston Symphony and it was the most incredible moment of my musical life, and an experience I will never forget. It is the dream of every musician to have colleagues of the caliber of the Houston Symphony's musicians.

I know the city's and the country's financial problems are deep. Our symphony suffers from these issues, too. But those who love Houston's symphony should redouble their efforts to find a solution that will keep the Houston Symphony in the high standing it has earned. Don't let the city lose such a valuable resource.

More city entertainment venues

Regarding Houston being capable of being the host city for the Super Bowl: absolutely not. It has the potential, but it won't be there in a year. It doesn't have what is needed to attract big-time events such as those in Las Vegas, Orlando or San Francisco.

The downtown improvements over the past couple of years and our Theatre District are a good start, but it is far from complete.

Regarding the renovation downtown: We should widen, deepen and beautify more of the bayou area downtown. Add clubs, restaurants, bayou dinner cruises and "continuous" entertainment venues such as the ones in New Orleans or Branson, Mo. This should include theater, comedy clubs and nightclubs, etc., along the bayou. We have a dog track and a horse track -- why not add a casino? That would continually bring people -- and their money -- to Houston.

Replace outdated traffic signals

Thanks to Mayor Lee Brown and his staff, our downtown area will soon attract people as a place to entertain guests who visit our city. But regarding the city's image, we must focus on the unattractive appearance of our traffic signals. Traffic lights attached to "span wires" are outdated and do not project a good image for modernity.

In many instances, the signal lights are crooked and constantly swing back and forth. It is apparent that little thought of style was taken into consideration when installing them. We should insist that they be replaced with modern traffic signals on poles.

Don George, Houston

On hungry children: Can Kid-Care deliver?

An abuse of press freedom

Regarding James T. Campbell's Feb. 3 Sounding Board column, "Does Kid-Care deserve second chance?": Campbell's tough but fair editorial renewed my belief that when freedom of the press is used properly, all of our liberties are protected.

On the flip side, whenever this great gift of liberty is abused, as was done to Kid-Care by a local television station, we all lose. The Kid-Care saga proved to me that ratings and revenue are the enemy of pure journalism and unbiased media.

As long as ratings, market share and advertising space considerations have equal or greater weight than reporting the truth in a balanced manner, we will continue to witness unethical behavior in the form of half truths or lazy reporting.

Carol and Hurt Porter have fixed and are fixing the internal accounting deficiencies reported in the 2001 audit, and they will have to regain the trust of the public.

But the distrust was not created by the Porters or their alleged mishandling of Kid-Care finances, alone -- it was, in part, created by the abuse of the freedom of the press.

As the people's right to know must be balanced against national security interests, so too must the right to know be balanced against the children's right to eat.

We know what happens to charities that abuse the public trust. What we don't know is what happens to reporters whose sloppy work harms hungry children or paints honest people as thieves.

Although I don't agree with everything Campbell wrote about Kid-Care, it was an honest and balanced opinion. Now let's get back to feeding Houston's hungry children.

Needs effective watchdogs

The quick answer to James T. Campbell's question if Kid-Care deserves a second chance is, "not without changes." Campbell noted that the "healing process starts with accountability," and with that I could not agree more.

However, it was only a few days ago that the Chronicle reported that a number of independent and critical members of the board of directors of Kid-Care Inc. were removed by Carol Porter and her cohorts. In other words, removed by the same people accused of financial improprieties who were being scrutinized by these independent directors.

And, as we saw in the Enron scandal, there can be no accountability in the absence of effective watchdogs.

Porter's passion inspiring

I appreciated James T. Campbell's column about Kid-Care. Being a volunteer there every Thursday for the past three years, what I've seen is that Carol Porter is a woman with passion; and it is that exact passion that inspired her to feed Houston's hungry children.

Also, regarding the board members: If they knew of wrong-doing, why didn't they have the guts to say so?

What has happened at Kid-Care has made me sick. I will be heartbroken if it does not survive.

Flag-burning issue a hot one

Veteran is deeply hurt

As a Korean War combat veteran who saw many Americans give their lives for the American flag, it hurt me deeply to read the Chronicle's Feb. 1 editorial ("Distraction / When was an American last harmed by a burning flag?") and to know that the editors feel that burning the U.S. flag does not harm anyone. I oppose this attitude, and I'm sure other veterans agree with me.

Fred Martinez, Pasadena

Freshman's learning curve

I was worried that Sen. John Cornyn's learning curve as freshman senator would be pretty steep, since he has never been to Washington, D.C., as an elected official.

But as I read his Feb. 5 Viewpoints letter ("Cornyn's defending our flag") responding to the Chronicle's editorial about his amendment to ban flag-burning, I see my fears were unfounded: He has obviously already mastered the conservative modus operandi of whining, attacking those who disagree with you and portraying them as un-American.

I am one veteran who is proud to oppose a constitutional amendment banning desecration of the American flag. I put my life on the line for the powerful things our national symbol represents -- such as the freedoms of speech, expression, association and religion -- rather than the symbol itself.

Look for me on Flag Day. I'll be one of those waving -- not objectifying -- Old Glory.

Jim Krzmarzick, League City

Politicizing patriotism

While he was attorney general for Texas, John Cornyn was charged with protecting Texans' rights of access to government records and meetings, an issue closely related to freedom of political speech and civil liberties in general. I worked closely with his office on these issues during his tenure as AG, and I felt that his positions were principled and that he promoted open government.

However, his anti-flag desecration bill, and his Feb. 5 Viewpoints letter defending it, show that he is now more interested in politicizing patriotism. I am deeply disappointed. I hope he does not fall in line with the Bush administration's policy of restricting access to government records.

Joseph R. Larsen, Houston

Following crowd down slope

I would have thought John Cornyn would have his hands full becoming informed on the country's critical issues, but he has found the time to get involved with the side-show of flag burning. That's pretty easy war to wage since practically no one approves of the practice; but real patriotism involves more difficult choices.

Texas voters sent Cornyn to the Senate to exercise his best judgment in the interests of his constituents, not to follow the crowd or the latest poll. An amendment banning flag burning is a slippery slope.

James G. Beste, Kingwood

Working on 2008 campaign?

Rather than address the issues raised in the Chronicle's Feb. 1 editorial about "flag burning," Sen. John Cornyn instead chose to "wave the flag" even higher and faster in his letter to Viewpoints.

He stated that men and women in uniform are being deployed overseas to "defend the flag." Really? I thought they were being deployed overseas to protect our country. His inability to distinguish between these two very different things is offensive to this Vietnam veteran.

Why doesn't he work on our country's real problems, instead of using my flag to begin his 2008 reelection campaign.

James Artlip, Sugar Land

Posturing on demagoguery

If John Cornyn thinks we need to go to war to defend our flag, he is nothing more than a silly, posturing demagogue. Most Texans feel that al-Qaida, rising unemployment, record budget deficits, corporate corruption, etc., merit much more of his attention than a few protesters burning the U.S. flag.

Regarding the Chronicle editorial, "Ruled Out: Texas doesn't need costly, contentious redistricting ploy," (Sunday, Feb. 2): The people of Texas need congressional redistricting to provide fair and effective representation for their legitimate interests. This concern is not for the interests of the Republican Party, but rather for the will of the people of Texas, which has obviously been thwarted by gerrymandering.

Following the 1990 Census, Texas was subjected to an egregious gerrymandering by the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

After the 2000 Census, when the Texas Legislature failed to produce a redistricting plan for the U.S. congressional delegation, a three-judge federal court produced a new map -- sophistic in result, if not intent.

This fundamentally flawed plan merely used the gerrymandered districts from the previous plan as the baseline for the new districts, and thus perpetuated the Democrats' perfidy of the '90s by rewarding them with a potential additional 10-year majority in the Texas delegation to the U.S. Congress.

The 2002 elections in Texas resulted in Republicans winning overwhelming victories in every statewide election, increasing their majority in the Texas Senate and gaining a majority in the House for the first time since 1872.

Yet, Democrats won a majority of Texas' Congressional seats, exactly the same number of seats under the court's new plan that they had under the old plan -- not a single Democratic incumbent running for re-election lost.

Thus, courtesy of compliant federal judges, the Democrats' shameful gerrymanderings of the 1990s had been extended for another decade.

In Georgia, an analogous scenario is unfolding.

In the 2002 elections, Georgians elected their first Republican governor since Reconstruction. In the previous year,[that state's] Democratic Legislature had blatantly gerrymandered the state's districts.

Shortly after inauguration, [Georgia] Gov. Sonny Perdue requested the new [Georgia] Legislature to establish redistricting guidelines "based on clear and simple principles that reflect community values and interests," and calling for the Legislature to "align our districts with democratic principles, not partisan politics."

These principles include compact districts, counties, precincts and communities of interest kept whole to the extent possible, and removing political data from the process. He announced his intent to have the Georgia Legislature redistrict the state fairly by following those principles.

The new Republican state government of Texas should adopt similar principles, taking the same moral high ground as its counterparts in Georgia. If fair redistricting can be achieved in Georgia, why not in Texas?

No Texan living today has ever lived under a state government controlled by Republicans prior to January 2003. The Chronicle's editorial headline was correct. "Texas doesn't need costly, contentious redistricting ploy," but that is the legacy of the Democratic Party.

However, Texans do need fair redistricting and effective representation for their diverse communities of interest.

After gaining complete control of state government for the first time in 130 years, Republicans should seize their historic opportunity to provide it.

Under the federal court ruling creating the current districts, the Texas Legislature retains the right to redistrict again. In the process, it should establish objective redistricting principles and apply them logically, consistently and conscientiously.